Hacker News Reader

Comment by angrycoder | Hacker News Reader

1) People crave stability.

2) Stability breeds contempt.

>> A will and desire awakens to go off, anywhere, at any cost; a vehement dangerous curiosity for an undiscovered world flames and flickers in all its sense. 'Better to die than to go living here' - thus responds the imperious voices and temptation; and this 'here', this 'at home' is everything it had hitherto loved! A sudden terror and suspicion of what it loved, a lightning-bolt of contempt for what it called 'duty', a rebellious, arbitrary, volcanically erupting desire for travel, strange places, estrangements, coldness, soberness, frost, a hatred of love, perhaps a desecrating blow and glance backwards to where it formerly loved and worshipped.

-- Nietzsche

View on HN

Can somebody explain to me why we allow philosophers to make explicitly positive claims about the mind and psychology without empirical evidence, when were they to do the same thing with regards to, say physics (claiming perhaps that "the sun has a will to orbit the earth"), we'd rightly reject them for lack of proof?

Well, first, there might be some things about human psychology that we can figure out a priori. Notice I said "might". I don't think it's obvious that we should rule out the possibility, at the very least.

More generally, it's just not true that all scientific work (including physics) is done completely by means of empirical research. See Wikipedia's entry on "Thought experiment" for some good cases[1].

I'm not arguing for or against this particular bit of Nietzsche, but I think HN sometimes overvalues empirical or statistical study above all else.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

That Wiki link needs to be editied. EX:

consequences:In terms of their theoretical consequences, thought experiments generally:

challenge (or even refute) a prevailing theory, often involving the device known as reductio ad absurdum,

Hmm, you could replace device with logical falicy but then it does not say what they thought it did...

Reductio ad absurdum is not necessarily a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Just ask yourself if it's true for you. If so, it's highly likely it's true for the general population.

> If so, it's highly likely it's true for the general population.

I'm like me, therefore everybody is like me?

If true, that should scare the bejesus out of all of you.

I suspect your parent was simply mocking philosophers.

No answer you get to this will possibly contain empirical evidence or any scientific rigor, and yet you asked it hoping for information. Philosophy isn't science. It's not much more than unusually thoughtful literature. But that's still useful sometimes.

There are different disciplines within the field of philosophy. The scientifically-minded philosopher might be interested in Metaphysics & Epistomology, or roughly, "what we know and how we know it". A standard approach in these fields is to address the Skeptic; someone who logically disagrees with the fundamental assumptions of the philosopher. This is where you get someone like Descartes writing "I think therefore I am" as a starting point for further arguments.

Other disciplines are less concerned with Truth (big "T") so much as they're focused on practical lessons on how to live life.

Yeah, it's almost like there are truths that aren't empirically verifiable!

Oops, I forgot: reductionism is the modern dogma. Carry on.

Relevant:

"At this point of his effort man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world."

-- Camus (who was heavily influenced by Nietzsche)

I understand the Nietzsche quote but not how the one from Camus applies?

Aren't they talking about two very different things?

Camus is talking about Absurdism. [1] How it's related to the Nietzsche's quote depends on how you see it. (Nietzsche was a kind of absurdist himself)

It is a broad theory. It says life is basically absurd because the world is meaningless and indifferent to man's desires/prejudices/beliefs. The world just doesn't care about man and we can't apply any universal laws to human life. Life is full of randomness/surprises. Loss/defeat/death can come anytime in any form but man continues to be in denial about them. This makes man vulnerable to boredom/pessimism/nihilism. I think this situation is what the article's 80% of people represent.

The solution Absurdists give is, man should create his own meaning in life and live for it but by being constantly aware of life's absurdity. Instead of denying it or seeking permanent happiness in some supernatural world or after life, we should embrace this life and all its absurdities. This attitude makes us live life to the fullest and as Nietzsche says it leads to the 'celebration of life'. I think the article's 20% of people fall under this.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Also see:

The Myth of Sisyphus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

Eternal Return - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_recurrence#Friedrich_Ni...

Amor Fati - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_fati

Maybe I am projecting, or misinterpreting because I lack context, but I actually find the quote posted by angrycoder to be (by Nietzsche's standards, anyway) rather uplifting, and not about absurdism or a fundamental lack of meaning in the world. My take on it is quite the opposite - that he was expressing something noble and almost 'hyperreal', namely the triumph of curiosity and exploration over the safe and familiar.

I may have totally missed the point, of course. Thanks for replying - I'll definitely check out your links.

I think I didn't explain properly. Your interpretation of Nietzsche's quote is correct and Absurdism says exactly that. It says instead of seeking a 'safe life' and striving for a life that is 'acceptable' by the society, we should make our own meanings and choices no matter how crazy they might appear because we're not answerable to anyone but ourselves. All novels of Camus contain this same theme. Some of the Nietzsche's famous quotes like "live dangerously" and "become what you are" also contain this sentiment.

Remember that both Nietzsche and Camus refused to belong to any particular philosophical school of thoughts but many of their thoughts overlap. So I'm just trying to link both.

"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs."

-- Lao Tzu

Reply on news.ycombinator.com